Based on the patterns we've seen thus far, want to take a guess as to why this statement from GCHQ is labeled as "extremely rare".?

Britain's intelligence and security organisation has dismissed claims, suggested by the White House, that it helped Barack Obama spy on Donald
Trump as "nonsense" in an incredibly rare public statement.

It’s quite obviously a hoax though unless there is something else to back it up

Although I dongt think this document is authentic, I would not be in favor of putting it in the hoax bin.

My personal feelings are the hoax bin should be reserved for things that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt are hoaxes.

I dont know that this meets the standard, seeing as I havent seen much in the way of proof this is a hoax.

Where I stand now is I havent seen proof that its authentic or a hoax, but my gut tells me its fake, and I certainly wont base any of my opinions or
commentary on the info that it contains, as I see no proof it is authentic.

Based on the patterns we've seen thus far, want to take a guess as to why this statement from GCHQ is labeled as "extremely rare".?

Britain's intelligence and security organisation has dismissed claims, suggested by the White House, that it helped Barack Obama spy on Donald
Trump as "nonsense" in an incredibly rare public statement.

Based on the patterns we've seen thus far, want to take a guess as to why this statement from GCHQ is labeled as "extremely rare".?

Britain's intelligence and security organisation has dismissed claims, suggested by the White House, that it helped Barack Obama spy on Donald
Trump as "nonsense" in an incredibly rare public statement.

Based on the patterns we've seen thus far, want to take a guess as to why this statement from GCHQ is labeled as "extremely rare".?

Britain's intelligence and security organisation has dismissed claims, suggested by the White House, that it helped Barack Obama spy on Donald
Trump as "nonsense" in an incredibly rare public statement.

If it were a document purportedly from Iranian Intelligence, or even Mexican Intelligence, it would more easily be considered as authentic. But the
British are our "best buds" on the planet. The USA's roots emanate from there.

If it were a document purportedly from Iranian Intelligence, or even Mexican Intelligence, it would more easily be considered as authentic. But the
British are our "best buds" on the planet. The USA's roots emanate from there.

And the document looks doctored, it looks looks it’s based on another document, there are a few small details that don’t seem right and
lastly..... if this had really been leaked it would be leaked to Fox News and would be the biggest story on the globe.

Based on the patterns we've seen thus far, want to take a guess as to why this statement from GCHQ is labeled as "extremely rare".?

Britain's intelligence and security organisation has dismissed claims, suggested by the White House, that it helped Barack Obama spy on Donald
Trump as "nonsense" in an incredibly rare public statement.

It may well be that the UK spied on trump, perhaps even at Obamas behest.

That in no way proves the authenticity of this document though.

You are correct. However, AboveTopSecret.com is a conspiracy discussion website. When was the last time we were directed to discuss only those
things that were proven as authentic?

For me though discussing a conspiracy should be done so using established facts and sound logic.

Otherwise I could start a thread every day claiming to have a new super power and just defend my claims saying this is a conspiracy site so anything
goes.

We have the skunk works for that kind of thing.

Yes..I'm in a similar mindset most of the time. But this particular document dovetails with what the President (Trump) was alleging way back in March
2017. ( www.telegraph.co.uk... ) And thus far, President Trump
has been generally correct in his statements regarding "Deep State" activities.

Be careful. I posted something similar to this and it went to the hoax bin without an explanation, and I even stated that a site claims to have part
of the memo, which was not a hoax because it did claim it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.